***The TOP 50 WINS OF THE DECADE, 1980-1989***

Ali beat Frazier, Norton,Liston, Foreman even Floyd Patterson and Bob Foster for that matter, but we can eliminated those last 2. But that list is 6 ATG fighters he beat, and Duran beat one. Ali beat all styles with speed and skill. Duran does not come close to Ali. Duran lost to all the greats he fought easily.

 

I didn't argue that he was greater than Ali.


I said, essentially, that he was the second greatest fighter of all time, who is still alive.

And that's hardly controversial.

 

There is such a big difference. One is a top ATG fighter. A legit 1-10 ATG fighter. Duran is great, but he never could reach the levels Ali reached and fought the different styles and ways. That is what I say about Duran. He was consistent at lightweight before he met the fighters at higher weights which made him have to fight at higher levels. Yet at those weights he lost and had excuses on why he lost. Ali got older and kept winning. He didnt' need excuses.

 

You're still not getting it.


I'm not arguing that Duran was greater than Ali.

I'm saying that Duran is the SECOND greatest fighter of all time, who is still living.

 

Thank you kind sir

It's crazy to think how people doubt duran when he was undefeated as a lightweight and ruled for what 7 years beating everyone around and unifying. He then beat one of the greatest welterweights in history, a feat that wouldn't be repeated until 1991 eleven years later!

Amazing stuff. Losing to greats at their prime weight when 20+ above his own weight is not too shabby.

 

i'll simplify it further: leonard vs jones at 175 in the mid-nineties.

 

or Thomas Hearns vs. Virgil Hill in 1991. Virgil undefeated with 10 title defenses and the best light heavyweight at the time. Thomas Hearns wins a UD at 32 years old 30 pounds above his starting title weight at welt. Duran was 32 when he fought Hearns at a weight he fought at before Hearns or Leonard fought at 154.
Leonard did not make it a habit to fight at 175, and really when did Roberto win a title 30 pounds above his weight. 160 pounds against Barkley is not Leonard vs. the best p4p fighter in the mid 1990s. Barkley was not the best even at middleweight.

 

virgil hill is no roy jones.

 

You don't really give hearns the credit he deserves that's what all this boils down to.

At 147 hearns got stopped by leonard, the same leonard who duran had beaten and only he would ever beat him during the decade.

At 154 duran got sparked by, imo, the greatest lmw in history. This is a man who is supposed to beat people at lmw, it's his domain. Not to mention he's fighting a guy who's a natural lightweight! Same with benitez a great fighter and a lot of people believe lmw was one of his best weights. He outboxed duran yes but then lost to moore himself.

At 160, almost 30 pounds above his natural weight and clearly past his best by this point he took the great middleweight hagler the distance, the same middleweight who would flatten hearns. He defeated barkley, the same man who flattened hearns.

If you don't rate duran then quite frankly you don't rate any of the fab 4, because this guy brought the best out of them all despite being a natural lightweight.

I'm not even a fan of roberto's but it's obvious this man is truly great, otherwise none of the fab 4 mean anything.

 

mag talking about Duran again? lol Funny thing about it is that mag does admit duran is great. I want to talk about money may!!!!!!

 

Great thread Popkins. I hadn't seen this one or the 90s one before but can't wait to get stuck in to both :good:good:good

 

Berbick was Grade B, not Grade C, he has good wins against Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page & John Tate. Plus i thought he deserved the decision against Snipes too.

I would say Michael Spinks was Grade B+ at Heavyweight, being blasted out by the most devastating fighting machine in Peak Tyson shouldn't detract from him.